Constant handicap arguments

[paininthenuts]

For the majority of the time I play against the same guys at my local club. We quite often have friendly discussions about handicaps, but today it blew up a little. The last time we played I scored 21 points over 9 holes. I play off of 21 and I happened to have a good game that day. Of course, there are plenty of days I score considerably less, but I genuinely believe that 21 is about the right handicap for me at the moment. My friends keep trying to change the status quo to suit themselves, and suggesting all sorts of handicap changes. Example, the low handicappers always want to play 3/4 of handicap, because they know full well it benefits them, but nobody ever suggests we play 125% handicap so it can benefit the high handicappers. Another of my friends believe we should sacrifice a shot every time somebody wins the game. I believe that the handicap system works perfectly if everyone has an accurate handicap. Seriously, what is the point of a handicap system if golfers are going to change it to suit themselves. I think it's the individual golfers responsibility to ensure they play off of the correct handicap, and then from that point onward just leave things alone.

[DaveP043]

I'd say that 21 points is a good day, but not unreasonable.  As you've noticed, though, nobody likes to lose, and everyone would rather blame the system for their losses.  I believe there are some competition formats that favor certain handicap levels.  Skins generally favor higher-handicappers.  Individual match play generally favors lower-handicappers.  Another "problem" is caused by the greater inherent variability of a higher-handicapper as compared to a lower-handicapper.  I think you're doing it right, post all of your postable scores, and live with the resulting handicaps.

[CarlSpackler]

1 hour ago, paininthenuts said:

For the majority of the time I play against the same guys at my local club. We quite often have friendly discussions about handicaps, but today it blew up a little. The last time we played I scored 21 points over 9 holes. I play off of 21 and I happened to have a good game that day. Of course, there are plenty of days I score considerably less, but I genuinely believe that 21 is about the right handicap for me at the moment. My friends keep trying to change the status quo to suit themselves, and suggesting all sorts of handicap changes. Example, the low handicappers always want to play 3/4 of handicap, because they know full well it benefits them, but nobody ever suggests we play 125% handicap so it can benefit the high handicappers. Another of my friends believe we should sacrifice a shot every time somebody wins the game. I believe that the handicap system works perfectly if everyone has an accurate handicap. Seriously, what is the point of a handicap system if golfers are going to change it to suit themselves. I think it's the individual golfers responsibility to ensure they play off of the correct handicap, and then from that point onward just leave things alone.

I don't know about it working perfectly. There is no perfect system when players of different skill levels compete, but the USGA formula is the best there is IMO. The winner of our golf league every year was the person who improved the most because they were consistently shooting below their handicap. These people wanted the HCI to remain fixed all year and never update. Those who were slipping didn't fare so well and wanted HCI to updated after every round. They also wanted their handicap to reset at the beginning of every year. We had sandbaggers who were better players that seemed to 3 putt if their opponent on a particular hole was already in their pocket. They could take an extra stroke or two to pad their handicap and still get points for winning the hole, so we switched to a Modified Stableford scoring system instead of matches. Besides, it was hard to arrange matches with people travelling and whatnot. People didn't like that because they could actually lose points on a particular night, so they lobbied to switch to a straight Stableford where you couldn't lose points. The downside with that is that the person who showed up the most is the winner.

I don't know what the solution is. I always like to see things flighted where lower handicap are competing against other lower HC players. Same for mid and high handicap players. We didn't have many players in our league, so we couldn't do that.

[Groucho Valentine]

These kinds of things are a big reason why i don't get into handicap games. They usually favor the higher handicap to begin with, and when they want more then sandbag to get it, it leads to drama like what paininthenuts mentioned. Playing strait up matches and games if the players are within 3-4 strokes of each other seems reasonable, but few do it. 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Groucho Valentine said:

These kinds of things are a big reason why i don't get into handicap games. They usually favor the higher handicap to begin with, 

Individual matches, including foursome and fourballs, don't necessarily favor anyone, other than the player who plays well as compared with his history.  There's a slight bias in fourball competition in favor of an unbalanced team, that is one whose handicaps are widely separated.  However, un-flighted stroke play competitions (and I'd include Stableford scoring here too) will favor the group of higher handicappers.  Any single player isn't favored, but the population of higher-handicappers is more likely to have one of its members shoot a really low score.  That same population is also most likely to have the highest net score.  In general, higher handicaps have more variability in their scoring.  An additional factor, at least at my club, is that some of our lower-handicap players seem to have a vanity handicap, they're victims of their own "anti-sandbagging."

[bkuehn1952]

16 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

.... Playing straight-up matches and games if the players are within 3-4 strokes of each other seems reasonable...

I am always willing to play straight-up matches against an opponent with an index 3-4 strokes higher than mine.  Unfortunately, few seem to want to do so.  

[DaveP043]

14 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I am always willing to play straight-up matches against an opponent with an index 3-4 strokes higher than mine.  Unfortunately, few seem to want to do so.  

Yeah, I bet most +1's are happy to play straight up like that.  Its not often they'll be the other way round, playing against a +5.

[GolfLug]

2 hours ago, paininthenuts said:

For the majority of the time I play against the same guys at my local club. We quite often have friendly discussions about handicaps, but today it blew up a little. The last time we played I scored 21 points over 9 holes. I play off of 21 and I happened to have a good game that day. Of course, there are plenty of days I score considerably less, but I genuinely believe that 21 is about the right handicap for me at the moment. My friends keep trying to change the status quo to suit themselves, and suggesting all sorts of handicap changes. Example, the low handicappers always want to play 3/4 of handicap, because they know full well it benefits them, but nobody ever suggests we play 125% handicap so it can benefit the high handicappers. Another of my friends believe we should sacrifice a shot every time somebody wins the game. I believe that the handicap system works perfectly if everyone has an accurate handicap. Seriously, what is the point of a handicap system if golfers are going to change it to suit themselves. I think it's the individual golfers responsibility to ensure they play off of the correct handicap, and then from that point onward just leave things alone.

Stick to your guns. If you are clear in your mind then there should be no worries. It will even out.  

[Groucho Valentine]

34 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Individual matches, including foursome and fourballs, don't necessarily favor anyone, other than the player who plays well as compared with his history.  There's a slight bias in fourball competition in favor of an unbalanced team, that is one whose handicaps are widely separated.  However, un-flighted stroke play competitions (and I'd include Stableford scoring here too) will favor the group of higher handicappers.  Any single player isn't favored, but the population of higher-handicappers is more likely to have one of its members shoot a really low score.  That same population is also most likely to have the highest net score.  In general, higher handicaps have more variability in their scoring.  An additional factor, at least at my club, is that some of our lower-handicap players seem to have a vanity handicap, they're victims of their own "anti-sandbagging."

Man i got to score like 65-70pts just to break even in alot of those group handicap games. I need to shoot under par to win anything. From my POV it heavily favors the higher handicap. 

31 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I am always willing to play straight-up matches against an opponent with an index 3-4 strokes higher than mine.  Unfortunately, few seem to want to do so.  

ikr? Whats wrong with people? 

[mchepp]

At my old club there were was a handicap argument every week. We even resorted to keeping a "group" handicap where we only counted rounds played in the group. We also kept track of the money there. What we found is similar to @DaveP043 stated earlier. Low handicaps didn't win many skins and high handicaps often lost matches. 

I think in a Stableford a 21 handicap can do well if you don't have any pick up holes. So no 0's. Add in a couple par net birdie and you have a good round. 

Just sounds like sour grapes by the guy who lost.

[Groucho Valentine]

18 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Yeah, I bet most +1's are happy to play straight up like that.  Its not often they'll be the other way round, playing against a +5.

I played this girl years ago and i gave her 4 a side. (She played at Ohio State and was a good player though) She shot 77 and took me to the cleaners. Never again! 

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I played this girl years ago and i gave her 4 a side. (She played at Ohio State and was a good player though) She shot 77 and took me to the cleaners. Never again! 

 

11 minutes ago, mchepp said:

Just sounds like sour grapes by the guy who lost.

'nuff said 

[Groucho Valentine]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

 

'nuff said 

If i get even par dropped on me by a higher handicap then so be it. Thats a great score and it deserves some cabbage.  But to get whooped as badly as i did that day by a 77 made me feel a little cheated, i must say. 

[DaveP043]

Just now, Groucho Valentine said:

If i get even par dropped on me by a higher handicap then so be it. Thats a great score and it deserves some cabbage.  But to get whooped as badly as i did that day by a 77 made me feel a little cheated, i must say. 

The question is, I suppose, did she have a handicap, did you find out what it was, did you adjust it as appropriate for playing different tees, all of that.  If you simply thought to yourself that this is a mere girl, I can whup her, and then got yourself fleeced, you deserved it!  And if she's a legit 7, after all the appropriate adjustments, and had a good round, then you still deserved it.  Sometimes you just lose to someone who's having a good day.  

[CarlSpackler]

6 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

If i get even par dropped on me by a higher handicap then so be it. Thats a great score and it deserves some cabbage.  But to get whooped as badly as i did that day by a 77 made me feel a little cheated, i must say. 

Never compete against a Buckeye. O-H!

[Groucho Valentine]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The question is, I suppose, did she have a handicap, did you find out what it was, did you adjust it as appropriate for playing different tees, all of that.  If you simply thought to yourself that this is a mere girl, I can whup her, and then got yourself fleeced, you deserved it!  And if she's a legit 7, after all the appropriate adjustments, and had a good round, then you still deserved it.  Sometimes you just lose to someone who's having a good day.  

Oh no,  Im sorry. I gave her two a side. 4 total. She said she was a 3 or 4 handicap. Which i believed. I don't remember what the course rating was, but she probably shot her handicap if she honest about her handi. But i shot one over and lost all three ways. She took some junks too. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Oh no,  Im sorry. I gave her two a side. 4 total. She said she was a 3 or 4 handicap. Which i believed. I don't remember what the course rating was, but she probably shot her handicap if she honest about her handi. But i shot one over and lost all three ways. She took some junks too. 

So she shoots her handicap, you're two over yours, and you lose.  Happens all the time.

[Patch]

33 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I played this girl years ago and i gave her 4 a side. (She played at Ohio State and was a good player though) She shot 77 and took me to the cleaners. Never again! 

I was humbled by a young lady several years ago who was with her father. We played from the white tees. It was fun to watch her play so well. At least I beat her dad.